Irish Military Online is in no way affiliated with the Irish Defence Forces. It is in no way sponsored or endorsed by the Irish Defence Forces or the Irish Government. Opinions expressed by the authors and contributors of this site are not necessarily those of the Defence Forces. If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You apply for promotion, stating what units / locations you are willing to serve.

You can only be promoted into an appointment that you are qualified to fill. The list of appointments & qualifications is listed in Annex XYZ to Admin Instr Part 10.

In the example you cited, the Sqn Sgt appointment would have the Cavalry Standard Course listed and you can only do that as a cav NCO.

The problem is with line vacancies in Inf Bns, HQs and in a lot of cases the Air Corps where everyone seems to run to given half a chance

Army unit commanders are very generous when it comes to approving a transfer for some of the dregs which have transferred into the AC. That goes for officers and enlisted.

They don't call it a retirement home for nothing.

The problem is when the said dreg goes for promotion, they generally have overseas service and multiple courses which are not available to AC members by virtue of the fact that they are AC line. So they end up being shafted in the promotion competition while army guys come in and put the feet up.

Not sure what having a Minister or Minister for State has to do with PDF retention though.

The Minister directs the DoD based on courses of action proposed by staff.

All the policies of the DoD over the past 20 years have served to erode pay and conditions of the DF.

Pay has been slashed, any worthwhile retirement for post 2013 contracts is gone. Allowances have been shredded. Housing support is non existent. Yet tasks and roles have expanded with continued cuts to overall establishment. Yet the DoD see fit to hire another Assistant Sec Gen appointment for HR!

DOD have pulled AC out of participation for Hotblade Ex (I know of two pilots who left because of that decision alone).
DOD refuse to open participation in EU Joint Units / EDA.
DOD pulled participation in EU Battlegroup Exercises in Germany.

All the while the Military Authorities swing up the arms onto retirement on pre 2004 pensions and lump sum bonuses for good behavior!

You apply for promotion, stating what units / locations you are willing to serve.

You can only be promoted into an appointment that you are qualified to fill. The list of appointments & qualifications is listed in Annex XYZ to Admin Instr Part 10.

In the example you cited, the Sqn Sgt appointment would have the Cavalry Standard Course listed and you can only do that as a cav NCO.

The problem is with line vacancies in Inf Bns, HQs and in a lot of cases the Air Corps where everyone seems to run to given half a chance

Thanks

Do you interview for the rank as opposed to the vacancy (ie if you want Pln Sgt 7 Inf, Sgt Instr Mil Col and Clerk Sgt Tpt Gp you only go to 1 interview board)?

With regard to courses, would a fairer way be just to give points for courses that as essential and desirable for the vacancy (I know my unit have these in standing orders and you would see them sometimes for vacancies in ROs)?

Do you interview for the rank as opposed to the vacancy (ie if you want Pln Sgt 7 Inf, Sgt Instr Mil Col and Clerk Sgt Tpt Gp you only go to 1 interview board)?

With regard to courses, would a fairer way be just to give points for courses that as essential and desirable for the vacancy (I know my unit have these in standing orders and you would see them sometimes for vacancies in ROs)?

You sit 1 interview for all appointments qualified for a period of 18 months. Your proposal is unworkable. What you are proposing was the old way, where you spend half your life sitting on interview boards

You sit 1 interview for all appointments qualified for a period of 18 months. Your proposal is unworkable. What you are proposing was the old way, where you spend half your life sitting on interview boards

.
No no not proposing a board for each

Iím proposing that courses points would only be counted for relevant courses and/or weighted.
.

well, the AC's version of retention is bonding techs for the cost of aircraft Type courses and in the case of joining contracts, you owe them money if you leave early. Anyone joining or seeking to join should ask about bonding before you sign any paper.

Service Committments for trainee tech schemes or external education have been around for decades and have actually come down in payback periods quite a lot. It has gone from 4 years per 1 year of instruction to 1:1 in some categories

@fantasia, that's true, of course, but for a six week course, techs were being bonded for four years. Also, the DF has a very spotted history of not pursuing those who left or changing their tune and then aggressively chasing people. I'll bet some of the "bonding " practices wouldn't stand up to a legal challenge.

Service Committments for trainee tech schemes or external education have been around for decades and have actually come down in payback periods quite a lot. It has gone from 4 years per 1 year of instruction to 1:1 in some categories

I wonder is that part of the problem with retention?

Originally Posted by TangoSierra

The cost of technical training as part of your appointment enabling tyou to do your job should not be used as a threat to indenture personnel to continued service.

Technical officers trained under Level 9 Masters with Carlow Institute of Technology are not required to sign an undertaking. Why should it be different for enlisted personnel

It also make you more employable outside, if the DF is paying for your wages and your course, itís only fair there should be return on investment.

That isnít right..... everyone should have to provide return on the investment

@fantasia, that's true, of course, but for a six week course, techs were being bonded for four years. Also, the DF has a very spotted history of not pursuing those who left or changing their tune and then aggressively chasing people. I'll bet some of the "bonding " practices wouldn't stand up to a legal challenge.

4 years for a 6 week course seems to be a bit excessive. Any idea of the cost of the course?